Top 5 Democratic Hawks in the Senate

National Journal has a rating called "Liberal on Foreign Policy Ratings", in which 100% reflects a lets-not-mess-with-other-countries mentality and 0% means a lets-bomb-al-jazeera type of mentality. Well that's my personal humorous interpretation but you get the point.

These findings surprised me. Republican Blanche L. Lincoln has a higher liberal on foreign policy rating than Hillary Clinton.
Ted Kennedy's rating is 93%. john Conyers is at a whopping 97%.
Hell even the Hawaiian guy who lost a leg is more liberal in foreign poolicy than Hillary Clinton.
Extremes are Jim Bunning, Republican from Kentucky, whose rating is zero. lol.
hillary's fellow NY senator Chuck Schumer stands at 75.
But let's cut to the chase: Here are the 5 least liberal Democratic senators in foreign policy in 2004:
These percentages are calculated through a complex mathematical formula to determine how liberally a member of Congress voted in relation to the rest of the House or Senate.

1)Evan Bayh (Indiana) 53%
2)E. Benjamin 'Ben' Nelson (NE) 54%
3)Lieberman (CT) 55%
4)Mary Landrieu (LA) 57%
5)Hillary Rodham Clinton 58%

and the link http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003487M

She's a Democrat

I was thinking about Lincoln Chaffee the Republican. Wrong Lincoln.

with a rating as high as Sen Clinton's ( in 2004 )
Whetever her faults, she is better than a g.d. Republican.

She is better than any Republican, but honestly, that's not saying very much these days.

Not.
The best you can say is that they suck worse.
Yeah. Let's run HER!

Perhaps my view of the political landscape is askew. (Won't be the first time.)

I often see conservatives as isolationists. Pay attention to home and let the rest of the world sort out its own problems. And liberal as desiring to engage with the rest of the world, learn from it, teach it, expend efforts to defeat oppressors, etc...

I can also see the opposite. To me, liberal/conservative is totally separate from isolationist/extroverted. I see no need to link the two.

So, in this list, I don't see it as saying "who is more liberal." I see it as saying "who is more prone to interventionist actions."

Am I off on thinking this?

all of their meaning these days . . . can an administration running history's largest deficits and dismantling all environmental protections really be called conservative? . . . and can so-called "left" politicians who vote for war and against the interests of average Americans be called liberal? . . .

the battle is not between left and right . . . it's between up and down, i.e. a small, entrenched, and very wealthy corporatocracy vs. the rest of us . . . it is indeed a class war, but most Americans refuse to acknowledge that as they continue to vote against their own best interests . . . it's truly a world turned upside down . . .

Traditionally, conservatives were against US govt intervention in foreign countries or participation in international institutions and foreign alliances. Then the neo-cons came along, and now the traditional view is often called "paleo-con." But the traditional conservative position has always been isolationist in nature, and when the US or US interests are threatened, prefer to act unilaterally, without the constraints imposed by participation with other international actors.

Liberals, on the other hand, have tended to be willing to act overseas, with military force if necessary, to protect human rights, to do nation-building and peace-keeping, to enforce international law, and always with the preference of acting multilaterally with the legitimacy afforded by the approval of the international community.

The website linked in the OP grades on liberal vs. conservative, but doesn't really define what is meant by either term, nor do they indicate which votes would result in a more liberal rating and which a more conservative one. But looking at the rating they've given to various Repub senators, I'm guessing they rated as conservative any vote that conforms to what the current administration wants.

Conservatives call for the nuking of Muslim nations "to get it over with". Not invading other countries has nothing to do with being an isolationist.

It's also no surprise to me that the top-rated doves aren't getting the discussion time that others are.

There are 7 senators, by my count, that were rated in the 90s as "liberal on foreign policy." Only one of them, Daniel Akaka from HI, rated higher than the top "rated" in the house. He rated a whopping 99.

The other senators were:

Durbin 95
Lautenburg 95
Reed 95
Corzine 93
Kennedy 93
Leahy 92

I counted 9 members of the house right behind Akaka with a rating of 98:

Grijalva
Miller
Lee
Stark
Soles
Waters
Sabo
Payne
Velazquez

And many other house members in the 90s below 98.

Perhaps more time should be spent talking about these reps. Is there a "Liberal on Domestic Policy Rating" that we could use to compare?

the question is what votes were even considered. Also, some Senators aren't on the list - including Kerry.

to come up with the rating? That's another good question.

Who else is missing, besides Kerry?

I was just surprised that Kerry wasn't on the liberal list, given his usual scores and those of people on the list - so I went to see what they scored him as. Then looking at the top I saw that it was 2004 - so I assume it was due to the difficulty of scoring him as he missed many votes where the leadership thought it would not be close.

So, I thought that I should post that as it is ignoring what has happened this year. It's also nice if they list the votes considered and the position considered liberal. Not to knock the scores but to understand them.

which should not come as a surprise at all.

Every Democratic Senator is more to this definition of "liberal" than not, even Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman. Hardly grounds for complaint over anyone, it would seem to me....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

job of tranforming herself. She was regarded by most as ultra-liberal only a few years ago.

I wonder if the electorate outside of DU regards her as a hawk? We will find out during the 08 campaign.

They don't know about Hillary's 58% that we are talking about today, so we shouldn't rely on the ignorance of the people to determine wether Hillary is or isn't a hawk. Rove & co. have made sure people believe she's an ultra-liberal.

If they're over 50%, they're on the proper side. Purity is not my business. I accept that we have 50 states, and within each state are many constituencies, and politicians must run to those constituencies.

Nelson is a godsend, a Dem Senator where we have no business having one, where a Pub should hold that seat. I accept him, warts and all, because of that. Anything we get from Nebraska is a plus.

Joe Lieberman is annoying as hell, mainly because he's such a whore for Fox News, but I mainly hate him because his suckiness helped create the 2000 result. I can live with him in the Senate, as that is between him and his state. But he'll never be allowed on the ticket again, EVER.

Landrieu and Bayh are both from states leaning Pub, and their voting fits their constituencies.

Hillary is the only one who is voting more conservative than her constituency, but not that much. Clearly, she is doing it to run for president. She's fine as a Senator from New York, but if she gets the nomination, she'll lose every state.